| | Ed, I have covered this topic at SOLO, but have had to stop because 1) I can see this going on for awhile, and I need to study; 2) It is a point of contention of what you, or I, mean by "cognition", "representation", "thinking", etc. when those words are in a field that is just started (the field of cognitive/psych/behavioral neuroscience studies); 3) I do use my education, and that includes using what I know of cognition, behavior, psychology, and neuroscience, every day.
Your very note of the limitation of ape cognition (to that of a 2-3 year old), is quite belittling, in this sense (which is also why it is belittling to claim to another human that they are acting like a 2 year old).
I noticed what words I was using. It is one thing to read this as belittlement, and another to read this as a supported fact. I cited an article for you that states this on SOLO. I did not see the word "limitation" as a negative word that is used for the specific reason of belittlement.
"Limitation" is a word that is used in the sciences and it does not mean more than it does-- the subject under study cannot go beyond a threshold. I could use the same exact word for an action potential, and it would still be appropriate. Context, Ed. That is the way I meant this world. I apologize if I was not clear.
I'm going to pull up something you said, Ed, which doesn't really help your argument here, but it was from SOLO:
Birds only memorize (perceptual power) better -- in fact, way better, than humans do. And this explains their performances best -- instead of postulating that you can 'think' (conceptual power) with mere bird-brains (Alex the parrot -- eat your heart out!) ... from this thread, which I have had to stop going.
I appreciate honesty, but please do not write this if later on you state that I use "belittling" words for animals. I do not use "bird-brain" nor "mere" in my scientific studies.
I have no idea what APEs or ACEs are. I call myself a student of science. That is part of who I am. I'm not an enthusiast for any one hypothesis or theory. When I think of my future dissertation, I've got about seven ideas I juggle. Sometimes one of them seems promising, sometimes not. It depends on what research is going on, and on what I learn later.
Perhaps more importantly, is it possible to talk about ape cognition without ANY reference to human cognition (as a comparative concept)?
ANY? Umm...
Scientifically, no, not if one were to study similarities in neurophysiology, behavior, cognition, etc.
Personally, I don't think about what an ape thinks and then compare it to me, in my day-to-day life.
The word "ANY" here is inaccurate. It's about context, and seeing that scientific animal cognition studies as not a direct challenge to anything personal, i.e. one's own sense of self.
It's pointless to ever do that. Is that a generous reading of your words?
"ever"? Yes, it's too generous. See response above about context.
I specifically used "neurophysiologic" and "limit" together to denote the scientific viewpoint. I use the words "the argument" instead of "the scientists' theories" to denote arguments amongst people who are not in the field, who use "less evidence" that directly relate to all the things going on in animal cognition research (note that I did not say "NO" evidence; and by the way, why should I even have to put this disclaimer down in the first place?).
whereabouts would you draw the line (between the evidence, and the comparison)?
If the evidence diverges, then the similarity comparison doesn't hold, at which point I use dissimilarity comparisons. I use both concurrently, i.e. when I study my pet turtle, I can list what's similar and what's not, physiologically. I'm always comparing... so I don't understand what you're asking me.
Comparison in this sense is scientific comparison, where both similarites and differences are used; i.e. a turtle's shell is different from our skeleton, however they also breathe air. That's a scientific comparison, not a "better or worse than us" comparison.
Comparison of brain imaging/electrical techniques, behavior studies, and neurophyiological differences as researched in those MRI papers. Neuroscientists have focused specific brain areas that do certain things, in which the structures are similar. It's not that far a stretch to test for and see anatomical similarities, neurocranial similarities, behavior similarities, etc. between apes and nonhumans, and say something about similarities in the conclusion.
Relevance: Debating whether cognition exists in animals scientifically is relevant in that it allows humans to know who, or what, does what, in what capacity. It can allow us to answer "how", and "why", as well.
Irrelevance: Debating whether cognition exists in animals with the background that it has some other meaning outside of science does not invalidate the science. And here-- in this context-- is where I meant what I stated my *opinion* that it was irrelevant to debate animal cognition, if it specifically meant that who we are as humans is threatened somehow by the science.
Here is where saying that "Well, apes build the same nest over and over again; it means they can't think like we do" has much more infused in it than just concluding "This data suggested that Pan troglodytes do not exhibit significantly different nest designs, with respect to dimensional size, material, or location."
If you are criticizing me for anthropomorphizing, you are looking at the wrong person.
Could you answer what it would it take -- for your humanity to 'be for the taking'?
What would it take? My conscious, self-aware, educated, knoweldgeable, insightful, foresightful, wise, volitional choice. As in, if I used all of those attributes to give up those attributes, I would not be human.
Which also means: every one of those, in my opinion, is needed at the fullest to be the best humans we can be.
On psychologizing: I dislike this word, because it means that integrated humans cannot be integrated humans when dealing with each other. It means that one must block off any kind of information that *may* inform us of *why* someone would say something. It suggests that it's bad to take into account the person as an emotive and behavioral, as well as cognitive, being; when in reality, that's what humans are, by nature. If my hypothesis on why someone would "say something" is wrong, then in that particular instance, it's wrong. I'll try to find out why, and I have no problem with being wrong. But, that doesn't invalidate those times when I was right, NOR does it invalidate using my knowledge of psychology, cognition, and neuroscience when I deal with creatures that have brains.
My intellectual forays are not relegated to this forum, or that one, or another, I am this way everywhere I go... that is what I meant by *everywhere*; I'm sorry that I didn't say "everywhere I went" as I should have, so I apologize for that.
What I should tell you is that I am not looking at any individual human on this topic. I was looking at how respones were in general towards the topic of animal cognition. What I did look at: the topic itself, and why it keeps popping up. Who said the most, and how did they treat the evidence. Who didn't say anything. Who used what rhetoric. Who used what sources. How did they use that source? What, if anything, is at stake? What is at stake for me? (For me: Treating science not as a weapon, nor a threat, but as an informative source). Who supports what? Who quotes what? Is there unanimous agreement, and how was it reached? What kinds of words were used? I just usually do as much of this as I can; I think some of it is automatic whenever I read something.
From this thread from SOLO: ME: I disagree with "all nonhumans don't think at all", and I disagree with "all nonhumans don't use concepts at all".
ED: It seems to me that what you are stating is that it is not possible that animals don't use concepts -- I disagree with that
How did you get from my statement to yours? I'm saying that some of them do, some of them don't. How did you get from that to "it's not possible that animals don't", when I didn't even write that?! I never said it wasn't possible.
It's not like I'm saying "It's not true that 0% of animals thinks" automatically means that I say "100% of animals think".
What is up with the ANY, the EVER, the ALL? I never said that. What the hell.
That's what *context* is, to realize when it's appropriate to use ANY, EVER, ALL, NONE, etc. in life and also in an argument.
I hate it when people do that to me, and I am sick of it. Anyone here can go back and pick it out, when it happens. It's inaccurate and it's dishonest, because I did not say that. I try to keep context, and it gets blown up; and I will take on some of that responsibility for not being clear when I said "context". But I did try.
It's not like I don't have an argument. It's more that I truly, really, honestly don't want to engage in arguments that uses whatever method that was. I have no name for the method, but I hate it already. Oh, I'm not scared, it's more like "pissed off".
I'm going to be more scarce from now on. I need to focus on the back-up of things I want to do that have bottlenecked at my MCAT. I have to take the GRE in July, and a writing test in June.
And from now on, I will stop engaging in arguments that uses "that method"; i.e. as soon as I see it, I will call it and move on. Thank you.
|
|
